Your comment that Ahmenijad is only 'against zionism, not the jews' is a fundamentally flawed and ultimately a racist, anti-semitic argument. That is because while it sounds inocuous to say that as if you're just against some 'idea' (ie zionism'), not a whole people is ridiculous in this case, as it was the zionist movement that lobbied the British to gain back the historical homeland of the Jewish people. Israel (and even more area than the current borders were historically part of Israel). Therefore, if you are against the idea of zionism, then you're really saying that you're against the idea of a Jewish country. And if you're against the idea of a Jewish homeland then you're really against the concept of the Jewish people existing in the world with a home like any other people and thus it is inherently a racist, genocidal concept.

Would you say that about France, Germany, Italy, etc that the people in those countries don't deserve a homeland??? You'd (or others) I doubt would ever say that, but somehow it has become OK to say that about Israel.

With regard to the whole Israel thing being discussed right now, this is the that paragraph piqued my interest in such a matter to begin with.

I was actually hoping SDW2001 might tell us what (specifically) he is afraid of in big bad Iran.

It appears I have misspoken but the point of that sentence was to highlight the double standard between the Jewish people being entitled to their own state and the Arab peoples native to the Palestinian region not so entitled.

I have not advocated the dissolution of Israel, it's just that I don't see why they should have any special rights when compared to other ethnic groups.

It doesn't seem to me like they did - Britain took the shattered remains of the Ottoman empire after world war I and carved it up between groups. Israel is entitled to their area just like the Jordanians, and just like the Pakistanis (since Pakistan was created as a Muslum nation artificially, just like Israel).

It doesn't seem to me like they did - Britain took the shattered remains of the Ottoman empire after world war I and carved it up between groups. Israel is entitled to their area just like the Jordanians, and just like the Pakistanis (since Pakistan was created as a Muslum nation artificially, just like Israel).

Excellent comment.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

It appears I have misspoken but the point of that sentence was to highlight the double standard between the Jewish people being entitled to their own state and the Arab peoples native to the Palestinian region not so entitled.

That was the idea. Split between the Jews and palestinian Arabs. The Arabs were given the larger portion, that is Jordan and the Jews the lesser portion.

But somehow, only the concept of the Jewish state is offensive to some. So, you are right, there is something of a double standard.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro.

Prior to the British Mandate, the Jewish population of the Palestinian region was around 10% and had been a minority for 1500 years.

Between 1917 and 1945 the Jewish population swelled to roughly 30% of the total population as a result of the Zionist movement.

The Jewish people were then given a share of the land that the Arab's did not consider equitable and conflict ensued.

The double standard lies in the fallacy that the Jewish people are somehow entitled to this land, despite not having possessed it for 1500 years, and that any who suggest otherwise are antisemitic or racist.

The real reason the Jewish people are entitled to that land at this point in time is because they took it over through military force. It's simple right of conquest, but nobody ever puts it like that, they'd rather pretend that Israel has some intangible and inalienable right to the region due to their ethnicity alone.

If you're reading ethnic genocidal intent into that-- he's gonna have to be a *lot* more explicit to before you can compare him to someone as blatant as Hitler.

Having or pursuing nukes has absolutely no bearing on a comparison to Hitler.

Hitler didn't deny the Holocaust. He's freakin' caused it. I don't see how the two are analogous.

Every one of your analogies just aren't right.

So either you're not quite the best advocate or it's plainly ridiculous.

Oh I see.

So anything that would "alter military capabilities to a high degree" is analogous to Hitler.

Persuasive.

Shawn,

You're splitting hairs. You really are. Here is a man who has a significant military capability and may develop the bomb soon. He has made statements such as "Israel should be wiped off the map" and "this regime's days are numbered." It doesn't get much more explicit than that. This man is fanatical, just like Hitler. He's told us what he wants to do, just like Hitler. He's convinced of the absolute supremacy of his religion, just like Hitler was convinced of the supremacy of the Aryan race.

Now again, I'm not saying that he can be compared to Hitler for sure, but you've gone a step further in saying it's a comparison worthy of ridicule. All I'm saying is it's an interesting comparison.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

A vague statement about the dissolution of a state is much different than clear calls for ethnic genocide.

Fanatical about what?

What?

You're not even trying now.

How are those two things analogous at all?

It's completely without merit.

Which analogy of yours has stood up to even the slightest criticism?

Look, I know you're in law school and feel you can out-argue anyone here, but you're really just playing games now.

I did not say the Iranian Army poses the same threat as the German war machine.

It doesn't matter if he said "Jews" or "The Jewish State." I'll guarantee you won't make a distinction either, not once he lobs a nuke at Tel Aviv.

Fanatical about his religion, as are the mullahs in power.

Hitler was convinced of the supremacy of the Aryan race. Ahmadinejad is convinced of the supremacy of Islam. Hitler believed that non-Aryans should perish. Ahmadinehad has said America and the UK will vanish because we've turned from God (hmm...which God, I wonder?). Ahmadinejad believes all non muslims are infidels, something his brand of Islam requires him to believe.

A fanatical and extreme ideology. A rising military power. Hostility towards the US and UK. What don't you understand?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Love splitting those hairs. Are they exactly the same? No. Germany was a broken country still climbing out of the disaster of WWI. Iran has vast oil riches, the second most significant military in the ME and a history of religious fanticism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShawnJ

Um. Try "Jews should be wiped off the face of the earth."

A vague statement about the dissolution of a state is much different than clear calls for ethnic genocide.

If you would like to provide a reasonable, relatively peaceful method of forcefully disolving that state, then maybe your statement makes sense. Otherwise, calling for wiping Israel off the map doesn't leave too much wiggle room. Though watching the extremes of wiggling out of that statement is entertaining.

You make the same statements as David Duke, but not as convincingly.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro.

Your comment that Ahmenijad is only 'against zionism, not the jews' is a fundamentally flawed and ultimately a racist, anti-semitic argument. That is because while it sounds inocuous to say that as if you're just against some 'idea' (ie zionism'), not a whole people is ridiculous in this case, as it was the zionist movement that lobbied the British to gain back the historical homeland of the Jewish people. Israel (and even more area than the current borders were historically part of Israel). Therefore, if you are against the idea of zionism, then you're really saying that you're against the idea of a Jewish country. And if you're against the idea of a Jewish homeland then you're really against the concept of the Jewish people existing in the world with a home like any other people and thus it is inherently a racist, genocidal concept.

Would you say that about France, Germany, Italy, etc that the people in those countries don't deserve a homeland??? You'd (or others) I doubt would ever say that, but somehow it has become OK to say that about Israel.

Mark

First, when you talk about "anti-Semitism", don't forget that 'semite' refers to a race, to which Middle Eastern Jews belong,.. but which also encompasses Arabs and others. Are you confusing a faith and a race here?

Judaism is a religious faith. Zionism is a political/geographical movement to create a state (a "Greater Israel") for the Jewish people. In the light of what happened during WW2, it is not surprising that the idea of a Jewish nation garnered wide international approval in the West. However, if that was the justification for the ultimate (re)recreation of Israel, why hasn't the international community extended that standard to all the other minority groups who suffered appalling losses in the Holocaust.. such as the Romani, Poles and other Slavs, the disabled, Jehovah's Witnesses, dissenters, clergy, homosexuals etc.? In the creation of that nation state for that one group, don't forget that hundreds of thousands of people, especially Palestinians, were forcibly evicted from their homes and herded like cattle into concentration-camp like refugee facilities in Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, where they and their descendants remain in exile to this day. The pogrom against the Palestinian people continues apace, and with the tacit approval of the West.

In the creation of a state in which one group is seen as preferred, or favored, is this not a form of apartheid? Israel is widely promoted as a 'beacon of democracy' in amongst a sea of middle eastern monarchies, dictatorships and theocracies... but do all groups within that country have equal rights. liberties and opportunities? (silly question, perhaps...)

Also, lest we should ever forget (I guess most people would rather not want to know, more like), some of the main forces responsible for the promotion of Zionist ideals were active terrorist organizations (Irgun Zvia Leumi, the Stern Gang, Hagganah) which indulged itself in numerous bombings and killings in the post WW2 years. Even a future Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, was an active member of one of these terrorist groups. (Extending *that* standard, can we ever expect to see Ayman Zarahiri or the shoe bomber run for political office accepted and embraced in the US and the west in general?). Oops.. do I get classified as a Jew hater for airing their dirty laundry? All terrorists are Muslims, don't forget..... just like "all drugs is white powder"...

**

About 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. However, looking through the total death statistics of those killed in WW2 for non-conformity to "Aryan standards", the total figure is usually quoted at around double that... approx. 12 million, and some have estimated it to be as high as 45 million. Now, take a look through the websites of the two main organizations (SWC, ADL) which have taken on the task of Holocaust awareness, and one will see that they are promoting it as solely a Jewish disaster (see the SWC logo, for starters). Yes,.... it was a "Jewish disaster", and the Jews suffered the largest losses of any one group.. but in the mainstream's virtually complete omission of every other group who were killed en masse at the hands of Hitler and the Nazis, the Simon Weisenthal Organization and the Anti Defamation League (and the mainstream media as a whole) verge perilously close to the land of (selective) Holocaust Denial. There is no denying that one. What are the reasons for this double standard? Are people throughout the world being edumacated that the other forgotten >6 million are of "lesser importance", or they are lesser people, or follow 'lesser faith(s)'? Or what? Can anyone offer some "enlightenment" here?

Ahmadinejad/rabid Jihadists, and the mainstream Western promoters of Holocaust" Awareness" seem to have more in common that we would like to admit.

(another oops... is this the end of the thread... did I just invoke Godwin's Law?)...

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

Is Ahmadinejad the New Hitler? Only if he starts killing Jews.. and where is the evidence of that?

Killing Jews isn't the only awful thing that the Nazis did. They killed plenty of christians and slavs as well, not to mention the fact that they aggressively "annexed" most of central & western europe into their military state. These are not things that we should look on kindly.

The major similarity here is that Islamic nuts have been drinking the same "manifest destiny" egg nog that the Nazis were so fond of -- if you're not a conservative muslim (or pagan aryan) you're in for some turbulence. Iran deserves concern: they almost have nukes, and seem to have plans to use them. If European powers had more proactively halted [illegal] 1930's German arms build-up, who knows, a lot of death might have been prevented. To repeat, this is why people are concerned about Iran.

Killing Jews isn't the only awful thing that the Nazis did. They killed plenty of christians and slavs as well, not to mention the fact that they aggressively "annexed" most of central & western europe into their military state. These are not things that we should look on kindly.

see post above

Quote:

The major similarity here is that Islamic nuts have been drinking the same "manifest destiny" egg nog that the Nazis were so fond of -- if you're not a conservative muslim (or pagan aryan) you're in for some turbulence. Iran deserves concern: they almost have nukes, and seem to have plans to use them. If European powers had more proactively halted [illegal] 1930's German arms build-up, who knows, a lot of death might have been prevented. To repeat, this is why people are concerned about Iran.

The "Iranian nukes" issue has been thrown around in the mainstream media for a couple of years now, especially when the situation next door in Iraq started going from bad to worse. But.... where is the undisputed evidence of of Iran enriching radioactive materials to weapon-grade? So far, it looks like another overblown WMD myth. Yes, Iran has a nuclear power program... and yes they have an Islamist "bad guy" as President.... (who looks to have fared none too well in the recent round of elections there). But look at Pakistan: they not only have an Islamist "bad guy" as President (Pervez Musharraf.. a bona fide military dictator/thug) but they have real, confirmed, nuts and bolts nukes, one of the most active Islamist (Madrassa) indoctrination and propaganda programs aimed at muslim youth, and never to forget: Pakistan's most senior intelligence official Mahmoud Ahmed (head of ISI) was the man who authorized the wire transfers of several hundred thousand dollars to Mohamed Atta, the alleged lead hijacker in the 9/11 attacks. It seems strange that the Bush Aministration has this all out attitude about Iran, whilst simultaneously embracing the Pakistani regime and never calling them both on international misdeeds re. nukes and a proven smoking gun relating to the attacks upon America.

Speculation time:
If anyone can prove here that Iran is without a shadow of a doubt pursuing a nuclear weapons program, then lets see it. Links, paperwork, video, testimony, whatever Otherwise... it looks like yet another festering dose of Bush Administration/NeoCon fearmongering to publicly justify more military action.

The US military will, at some point in the fairly near future, bomb sites in Iran that have been "designated" as "nuclear weapons processing facilities". But to justify such action without raising too many awkwards questions in Congress, some kind of attack upon US military etc. facilities will have to happen, or be reported as happened (whether it actually happened or not) .......which can then be easily blamed upon Iran. Our mainstream media will lap it up, as they invariably do so quickly and well, and the US public will be enraged enough to support a devastating "response". The "retaliation" will most likely be air-strikes upon Iran's alleged nuclear sites, as well as anything else to do with their nuclear program and support industries, be it alleged weapons, or civilian. In the slightly longer term, it won't matter an iota should anyone deliver evidence that the initial attack was a bogus Gulf of Tonkin style non-event, or an actual false flag "collateral damage" agenda promotion.. as they will be rounded upon by our weasel mainstream media as "wild conspiracy theorists", and the US Government as "supporters of the Islamist enemy". Similar things have happened countless times before in recent decades, and still nobody seems to get it...

A pragmatic outlook: it will happen again.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

I'll assume that you are and remind you that should Iran attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, Iran would be practically guaranteed destruction from the Israeli retaliatory strike.

Now I see where you're coming from. The problem is that we are not dealing with people that will let MAD stop them. These aren't the Soviets. There are those in the Iranian government leadership that subscribe to the brand of Islam that calls for them to bring on the Apocolypse. Don't you see? They think the end of the world...them inlcuded...is a good thing. The only question remaining is "who is they?" It certainly seems Ahmadinejad is a "they" as are many of mullahs. Until you understand their worldview, you can't understand the threat. Islamofascists do not value life...they value death. That is the prime difference between the Soviets and "they."

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

The "Iranian nukes" issue has been thrown around in the mainstream media for a couple of years now, especially when the situation next door in Iraq started going from bad to worse. But.... where is the undisputed evidence of of Iran enriching radioactive materials to weapon-grade? So far, it looks like another overblown WMD myth. Yes, Iran has a nuclear power program... and yes they have an Islamist "bad guy" as President.... (who looks to have fared none too well in the recent round of elections there). But look at Pakistan: they not only have an Islamist "bad guy" as President (Pervez Musharraf.. a bona fide military dictator/thug) but they have real, confirmed, nuts and bolts nukes, one of the most active Islamist (Madrassa) indoctrination and propaganda programs aimed at muslim youth, and never to forget: Pakistan's most senior intelligence official Mahmoud Ahmed (head of ISI) was the man who authorized the wire transfers of several hundred thousand dollars to Mohamed Atta, the alleged lead hijacker in the 9/11 attacks. It seems strange that the Bush Aministration has this all out attitude about Iran, whilst simultaneously embracing the Pakistani regime and never calling them both on international misdeeds re. nukes and a proven smoking gun relating to the attacks upon America.

Speculation time:
If anyone can prove here that Iran is without a shadow of a doubt pursuing a nuclear weapons program, then lets see it. Links, paperwork, video, testimony, whatever Otherwise... it looks like yet another festering dose of Bush Administration/NeoCon fearmongering to publicly justify more military action.

The US military will, at some point in the fairly near future, bomb sites in Iran that have been "designated" as "nuclear weapons processing facilities". But to justify such action without raising too many awkwards questions in Congress, some kind of attack upon US military etc. facilities will have to happen, or be reported as happened (whether it actually happened or not) .......which can then be easily blamed upon Iran. Our mainstream media will lap it up, as they invariably do so quickly and well, and the US public will be enraged enough to support a devastating "response". The "retaliation" will most likely be air-strikes upon Iran's alleged nuclear sites, as well as anything else to do with their nuclear program and support industries, be it alleged weapons, or civilian. In the slightly longer term, it won't matter an iota should anyone deliver evidence that the initial attack was a bogus Gulf of Tonkin style non-event, or an actual false flag "collateral damage" agenda promotion.. as they will be rounded upon by our weasel mainstream media as "wild conspiracy theorists", and the US Government as "supporters of the Islamist enemy". Similar things have happened countless times before in recent decades, and still nobody seems to get it...

sammi, I'm sorry but posts like this are the reason you've earned the name Samantha Joan Conspiracy in the past (for those non-old times, that was sammi jo's name pre-blackout).

Iran is pursuing nuclear power. I assume we agree on this? Now why might they do that? They are sitting on vast oil reserves. There is no reason to develop peaceful nuclear power in Iran. In fact, it could be said that by diverting time and resources to this endeavor, they're actually harming their oil based economy. Secondly, we have found evidence of uranium enriched beyond what is considered necessary for "peaceful" nuclear power, no?

Meanwhile, Iran is furiously upgrading their centrifuge capability. They are furiously upgrading their missile technology as well. Their government has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, has said the Israeli State must end, and that "we will soon a see a world without America and Israel."

Proof? You're right. But you'd have to be some kind of idiot to think they're pursuing nucelear power for peaceful reasons. In Iran, there are no peaceful uses for nuclear power.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

see post above
But.... where is the undisputed evidence of of Iran enriching radioactive materials to weapon-grade? So far, it looks like another overblown WMD myth.

The major difference between this being "another WMD myth" is that while Saddam claimed that he wasn't producing said weapons, I'm pretty sure Ahmadinejad publically claims to have nuclear capabilities.

For someone who's usually an alarmist, I'm a little bit confused as to why this doesn't trouble you. Maybe Iran has nuclear weapons, maybe they don't: I'm not really saying that we should invade Iran, but I just can't see how you don't find it a cause for concern.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsLan^

It sounds ridiculous.

Are you familiar with the acronym M.A.D.?

I'll assume that you are and remind you that should Iran attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, Iran would be practically guaranteed destruction from the Israeli retaliatory strike.

You kind of have to hope that all that work on anti-missile missiles and other missile disabling technologies has reached a suitable level of performance. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much of Israel left to retaliate -- I guess they will need to locate the retalitory missile base in Jerusalem. . . how ironic.

The major difference between this being "another WMD myth" is that while Saddam claimed that he wasn't producing said weapons, I'm pretty sure Ahmadinejad publically claims to have nuclear capabilities.

For someone who's usually an alarmist, I'm a little bit confused as to why this doesn't trouble you. Maybe Iran has nuclear weapons, maybe they don't: I'm not really saying that we should invade Iran, but I just can't see how you don't find it a cause for concern.

Exactly. I wonder if this was about a different issue...say Global Warming...would Sammi employ the same reasoning? Global Warming isn't proven either. However, most people of her political stripe are going totally batshit over it. Yet, while there is every reason to believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons and little reason not to...she doesn't seem concerned at all.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I think Sammi is heavy on the CT side, too. Anyone who thinks 9/11 is a conspiracy makes me shake my head.

However, I think we should have been dealing with Iran instead of driving our military into la la land in Iraq. If Iran does in fact ramp up and lob a nuke, we'll have a real hard time dealing with it since our military is dealing with fuk'd up Iraq.

1) Ahmadinejad has no power. The Mullahs can and will remove him the moment it becomes politically expedient.

Right now both they (the religious leaders) and the US are playing a cat and mouse game with the western public as the patsy.

The Mullahs get to use Ahmedinejad as a kind of 'non-religious' puppet for themselves to dupe their populace (although the students have seen through it and are increasing protests by the day) and will offer him up as a sacrificial lamb when the time is ripe to talk to the US.

The US for their part get a bogey to continue the 'scare the sheep' program with and also as they know he will be made to fall on his sword in due course have a ready made excuse for diplomatic negotiations with the 'enemy' when he is kicked into touch: 'Iran is ok now he has gone' sort of campaign.

2) Ahmadinejad never said 'Wipe Israel off the map' and this is so well established now that anyone who continues to claim it is either woefully ignorant of the topic to the degree they have no right to discuss it or else deliberately perpetuating a lie for the own reasons.

3) The Holocaust Conference and Holocaust denial: I have yet to hear Ahmadinejad deny the Holocaust. What I have heard him say is that Zionists use the Holocaust for political capital and that it is a subject which one is not allowed to question. In essence his statements boil down to "if there was a Holocaust why can it not be questioned?" in the same way as one is allowed to question the shape of the earth.

He may or may not feel that the Holocaust is a myth,certainly there are mythic elements - I was told many times when I was a child that Jews were made into soap in the camps for example, this was not true but everyone believed it at the time and questioning it brought the same reactions questioning other similar issues does now - and it may be that he is questioning there or else using the issue as leverage to fight Zionism (something that certainly needs to be done and is being done by many people including many Jews) or he may just be a racist.

In the end it doesn't matter - there are racists everywhere, in the IDF, in the White House, rampant in the UK, so what? I'd be happy to go after them all but in the meantime we should probably not give one group of fascists a free pass - especially based on racial considerations.

4) Interestingly, numerous Rabbis were invited to the conference and attended it giving very interesting speeches on Zionist collaboration with the Nazis in WW2 and perhaps, less contentiously, the openly racist and often illegal activities that underpin the Zionist conception.

Basically it all comes down to one fact: you can have as much free speech as you like as long as we approve it.

The 'we' being the increasingly emasculated 'leaders' (though it is an offence verging on the obscene to anyone who ever really was a leader in any capacity from the Girl Guides or even below, to label them such) whose ability to construct unfeasible lies is matched only by the gullibility of their target audience......

This thread should really have been named: Are the section of the American public who have surrendered all semblance of logical sequential thought the new Stepford Wives?

Someone should then have posted just one word in reply: YES for example.

And a mod should have got in here hotfoot with a clunking big lock and banned us all* for being so stupid or bored to even bother replying.

* Except Mark UK - he is under God's protection by virtue of insanity.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

BTW, if you dirty pubis exporting horse-urine drinking Barcelonians dont stop spreading this unfounded propaganda against me, i will be forced to chew up bits of paper and flick them at you with my steel rule. Until then have a happy Christmas.

well, its been a while, but I read through Deuteronomy and Joshua again just to check,

I guess the question is have you read it?

the whole land of Israel was stolen by Joshie from various other peoples and an awful lot of people died, (you might wonder why they had to die - god promised he would destroy all the people they encountered and this happened pretty mercilessly at the start, but then as the story unfolds, alot of the people Josh encounters actually become slaves, or merge with the Israelites - either god break his promise, or he regretted the wanton destruction)

So the entire notion that todays state of israel has a 'biblical' right to exist is a bit suspect. Certainly ' people' have a right to exist - however if you are arguing that the land (of Israel) is being returned to its rightful owners, then it shows within the OT that the land we know today as Israel - was stolen by Joshua right from the beginning...

Assuming your ignorant enough not to understand the flight from Egypt story in context...

And its interesting to note that this Eleazor guy springs up again in Joshua, who dies right after Joshua tells his people to give up worshipping the strange Gods (Osiris), right at the end of the book. You paying attention Frank??? why would Jesus resurrect Eleazor again?

I would NOT call what you wrote 'fact's, segovius, more like mostly lies and nonsense....

Quote:

Originally Posted by segovius

2) Ahmadinejad never said 'Wipe Israel off the map' and this is so well established now that anyone who continues to claim it is either woefully ignorant of the topic to the degree they have no right to discuss it or else deliberately perpetuating a lie for the own reasons.

3) The Holocaust Conference and Holocaust denial: I have yet to hear Ahmadinejad deny the Holocaust. What I have heard him say is that Zionists use the Holocaust for political capital and that it is a subject which one is not allowed to question. In essence his statements boil down to "if there was a Holocaust why can it not be questioned?" in the same way as one is allowed to question the shape of the earth.

Just because You didn't hear him say it, doesn't mean that he didn't say it!

4) Interestingly, numerous Rabbis were invited to the conference and attended it giving very interesting speeches on Zionist collaboration with the Nazis in WW2 and perhaps, less contentiously, the openly racist and often illegal activities that underpin the Zionist conception.

There is a small segment of ultra-orthodox Jews who have a very literal interpretation of the bible and what events need to occur for the Messiah to arrive. One of their beliefs is that the Messiah won't come while Israel is there.

That is the reason for their beliefs coinciding in this case with Ahmadinejad's, not for the other idiocy that you mention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by segovius

Basically it all comes down to one fact: you can have as much free speech as you like as long as we approve it.

The 'we' being the increasingly emasculated 'leaders' (though it is an offence verging on the obscene to anyone who ever really was a leader in any capacity from the Girl Guides or even below, to label them such) whose ability to construct unfeasible lies is matched only by the gullibility of their target audience......

This thread should really have been named: Are the section of the American public who have surrendered all semblance of logical sequential thought the new Stepford Wives?

Someone should then have posted just one word in reply: YES for example.

And a mod should have got in here hotfoot with a clunking big lock and banned us all* for being so stupid or bored to even bother replying.

* Except Mark UK - he is under God's protection by virtue of insanity.

Not sure what you're smokin' in your nargilah, segovious, but it ain't workin' for you....

There is a small segment of ultra-orthodox Jews who have a very literal interpretation of the bible and what events need to occur for the Messiah to arrive. One of their beliefs is that the Messiah won't come while Israel is there.

Umm, did you read the 3rd sentence in the first paragraph of the page you link to????

"But the word "torah" can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah), or in its broadest sense, to the whole body of Jewish law and teachings."

Umm, did you read the 3rd sentence in the first paragraph of the page you link to????

"But the word "torah" can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah), or in its broadest sense, to the whole body of Jewish law and teachings."

I think Sammi is heavy on the CT side, too. Anyone who thinks 9/11 is a conspiracy makes me shake my head.

You have a lot of head shaking to do, no matter who you believed planned and executed the 9/11 attacks.

Was 9/11 not a CONSPIRACY by 19 middle eastern hijackers and other fundamentalist Islamic jihadists?
And is it not true that the THEORY is that those 19 middle easterners slammed three hijacked planes into American landmarks, and crashed a 4th one in the PA countryside?

C'mon, even if you acknowledge the government's story, do try to learn the meaning of common- usage English words before applying them in a sentence.

!!

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

C'mon, even if you acknowledge the government's story, do try to learn the meaning of common- usage English words before applying them in a sentence.

cRaZylaDySAyWha?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo

You have a lot of head shaking to do, no matter who you believed planned and executed the 9/11 attacks.

Was 9/11 not a CONSPIRACY by 19 middle eastern hijackers and other fundamentalist Islamic jihadists?
And is it not true that the THEORY is that those 19 middle easterners slammed three hijacked planes into American landmarks, and crashed a 4th one in the PA countryside?

C'mon, even if you acknowledge the government's story, do try to learn the meaning of common- usage English words before applying them in a sentence.

Quote:C'mon, even if you acknowledge the government's story, do try to learn the meaning of common- usage English words before applying them in a sentence.

cRaZylaDySAyWha?

Both the official story, and any "alternative explanation" (re. 9/11) are conspiracy theories. The crime involved more than one person (ie the plan was conspiratorial) and any account involves some degree of theorizing, especially since there are so many unknowns.

Incidentally: For everyone who assumes I am a "conspiracy theorist" (as regards the 9/11 attacks), you are all so wrong. Yes, I have my doubts (plenty of them) re. the US Government's honesty and transparency re. the attacks, and their own data proves that they have lied about events that day, on numerous occasions. However, I haven't put forward any 'conspiracy theory' re 'whodunnit'... because I, alongside 99.9999% of the rest of the people on this planet, do not know.

All I have done (to earn the title of 'sammi jo conspiracy' as SDW gleefully pointed out), is to ask questions. I assume that asking questions (especially awkward ones) isn't the correct thing in the era of "freedom fries".. (freedom's fried?).

Carry on.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

I would think the USA is heading towards a pre-world war 2 German model as opposed to Iran which is in the same state of affairs for the past few decades -- except that they have access to a crude blueprint of a nuclear power plant. Ahmadinejad is hardly a comparison to Hitler. The entire middle east doesn't like Israel either and they have made similar or stronger statements over various periods of time.

Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof

Here is an interesting article as to why there is no resolution to what goes on in the Middle East. This is why the United States and the rest of the world should just get the hell out of there and let the Arabs and Jews resolve their own problems.

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson

Here is an interesting article as to why there is no resolution to what goes on in the Middle East. This is why the United States and the rest of the world should just get the hell out of there and let the Arabs and Jews resolve their own problems.